Container Vessel Accidents Analysis: A NASAHFACS Framework Study

manindra pratap singh; bangar raju totakura

Outline

Acadlore takes over the publication of IJTDI from 2025 Vol. 9, No. 4. The preceding volumes were published under a CC BY 4.0 license by the previous owner, and displayed here as agreed between Acadlore and the previous owner. ✯ : This issue/volume is not published by Acadlore.

Open Access

Research article

Container Vessel Accidents Analysis: A NASAHFACS Framework Study

Manindra Pratap Singh^*

,

Bangar Raju Totakura

School of Business, University of Petroleum & Energy Studies, Dehradun 248007, India

International Journal of Transport Development and Integration

|

Volume 8, Issue 2, 2024

|

Pages 341-357

https://doi.org/10.18280/ijtdi.080211

Received: 03-26-2024,

Revised: 06-05-2024,

Accepted: 06-18-2024,

Available online: 06-29-2025

View Full Article|

Download PDF

Abstract:

Container vessel accidents risk maritime safety and the environment, and understanding their causes and consequences is vital to developing effective preventive measures. This study analyzes the distribution of latent factors and active events related to container vessel accidents by applying the Human Factors Analysis and Classification System (HFACS) derived NASAFACS framework. The study employs a varied dataset comprising different types of container vessel accidents that occurred worldwide from 2010 to 2021. Findings suggest that latent factors, i.e., 'Preconditions,' are the predominant causative agents behind container vessel accidents, followed by 'Acts,' which involve active events leading to them. Damage to vessels is usually the most common outcome, and container loss and environmental pollution are sizeable. Collision incidents frequently involve both latent factors and active errors, while fire incidents typically are solely driven by latent ones; other accident types, including heavy weather damage, grounding, and allision incidents, show evidence of both latent and active factors; heavy weather damage incidents tend to exhibit higher incidences of environmental pollution than other accident types. This research offers unique insight into container vessel accidents, underlining the need for enhanced securing practices, accurate cargo declaration, and stricter cargo stowage compliance to improve safety and reduce pollution.

Keywords: Maritime safety, Container vessel accidents, NASAHFACS, Human error, Latent factors, Active events, Accident consequences, Environmental pollution

1. 1. Introduction

First introduced in the 60s, containerization has transformed international shipping and the global trade significantly. Before the advent of the container vessels, goods were shipped in unpacked boxes and other makeshift arrangements. These traditional ways often resulted in damages and wastages during the loading and the unloading processes. Besides, was also subject to pilferage, as the whole process was carried out manually. With the advent of the container vessels, it is now possible to move goods seamlessly within plants, roads, rails or oceans. Containers are loaded and sealed at the origin and need only be checked by the receiver at the destination, thus making this mode of transportation efficient and more secured.

Modern container liner services can be said to operate like timetabled train or bus service, plying on established routes and covering major ports around the world. These ships symbolize intricate supply chains, whether they transport patio furniture from Thailand to Milan or avocados from Chile to Berlin. As per the World Shipping Council, container ships transport more than half of the global sea trade value, which is a testimony to the effectiveness of this method.

Several pivotal factors drive the growth and dominance of container shipping in the global trade.

Larger vessel size: Economies of scale have led to mega-ships that reduce the transportation costs per container.

Efficiency and technology: Automation and digital advancements have streamlined operations.

Global manufacturing networks: Global sourcing and assembly boost demand for container shipping.

E-commerce growth: Increasing consumer demand necessitates efficient global transportation.

Emerging markets: Opening new trade opportunities increases global trade volume.

Specialization and JIT inventory: Reduces excess storage needs.

Trade agreements: Reduced tariffs foster global trade.

Intermodal transportation: Containers can be moved on different modes of transport i.e., ships, trains, trucks etc.

Infrastructure development: Modern ports and logistics infrastructure support fast turnaround of vessels.

However, global container trade networks remain vulnerable. One striking reminder was the grounding of the Ever Given in March 2021 in the Suez Canal, a critical maritime route that participates in approximately 12 percent of global trade. When blocked, this brought home just how vulnerable global supply chains genuinely are. The Ever Given grounding proved that even seemingly isolated incidents could have wide-reaching repercussions for global cargo transportation networks. Shipping delays, inventory shortages, and economic disruption were all experienced as a result of this grounding incident.

Container shipping constitutes a significant portion of global trade and experiences continuous annual growth. It is anticipated to witness even more rapid expansion in the future. Container ships play a vital role in facilitating global supply chains. However, accidents involving container vessels have become a growing concern worldwide due to the substantial financial losses and disruptions they cause.

Table 1 provides an overview of the various types of accidents in which container vessels may be involved.

Table 1. Description of various types of maritime accidents

Accident Type	Description
Allision	Striking of a ship against a stationary object.
Collision	Physical contact and impact between ships.
Fire	Fire onboard with exposure to cargo, vessel, personnel or all.
Foundering	Sinking of a ship.
Grounding	The vessel touches the seabed because of the lack of water depth.
Heavy Weather Damage	Damage caused to a ship or cargo owing to exposure to heavy weather in the passage.

3. Methodology

3.1 Data

3.2 Method

Figure 1. An accident in making (Based Reason, 1990, as adapted by Shappell and Wiegmann [23])

(1)

Table 2

Associations	P value	Chi Square	Significant/ Insignificant
Incident Type and Fatality	0.119	10.141^a	Insignificant
Incident Type and NASAFACS	< 0.001	53.506^a	Significant
Incident Type and Vessel Size	0.445	18.167^a	Insignificant
Incident Type and Casualty	0.161	16.714^a	Insignificant
Incident Type and Operational State	0.010	50.714^a	Significant
Incident Type and Pollution	0.037	20.137^a	Significant

References

[1] Celik, M., Cebi, S. (2009). Analytical HFACS for investigating human errors in shipping accidents. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 41(1): 66-75. [Crossref]

[2] Celik, M., Lavasani, S.M., Wang, J. (2010). A risk-based modelling approach to enhance shipping accident investigation. Safety Science, 48(1): 18-27. [Crossref]

[3] Schröder-Hinrichs, J.U., Baldauf, M., Ghirxi, K.T. (2011). Accident investigation reporting deficiencies related to organizational factors in machinery space fires and explosions. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 43(3): 1187-1196. [Crossref]

[4] Salmon, P.M., Cornelissen, M., Trotter, M.J. (2012). Systems-based accident analysis methods: A comparison of Accimap, HFACS, and STAMP. Safety Science, 50(4): 1158-1170. [Crossref]

[5] Chen, S.T., Wall, A., Davies, P., Yang, Z., Wang, J., Chou, Y.H. (2013). A Human and Organisational Factors (HOFs) analysis method for marine casualties using HFACS-Maritime Accidents (HFACS-MA). Safety Science, 60: 105-114. [Crossref]

[6] Akyuz, E., Celik, M. (2014). Utilisation of cognitive map in modelling human error in marine accident analysis and prevention. Safety Science, 70: 19-28. [Crossref]

[7] Wu, B., Yan, X., Wang, Y., Soares, C.G. (2017). An evidential reasoning-based CREAM to human reliability analysis in maritime accident process. Risk Analysis, 37(10): 1936-1957. [Crossref]

[8] Theophilus, S.C., Esenowo, V.N., Arewa, A.O., Ifelebuegu, A.O., Nnadi, E.O., Mbanaso, F.U. (2017). Human factors analysis and classification system for the oil and gas industry (HFACS-OGI). Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 167: 168-176. [Crossref]

[9] Akyuz, E. (2017). A marine accident analysing model to evaluate potential operational causes in cargo ships. Safety Science, 92: 17-25. [Crossref]

[10] Fu, G., Cao, J.L., Zhou, L., Xiang, Y.C. (2017). Comparative study of HFACS and the 24Model accident causation models. Petroleum Science, 14: 570-578. [Crossref]

[11] Kim, H.T., Na, S. (2017). Development of a human factors investigation and analysis model for use in maritime accidents: A case study of collision accident investigation. Journal of Navigation and Port Research, 41(5): 303-318. [Crossref]

[12] Kececi, T., Arslan, O. (2017). SHARE technique: A novel approach to root cause analysis of ship accidents. Safety Science, 96: 1-21. [Crossref]

[13] Chen, J., Zhang, F., Yang, C., Zhang, C., Luo, L. (2017). Factor and trend analysis of total-loss marine casualty using a fuzzy matter element method. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 24: 383-390. [Crossref]

[14] Batalden, B.M., Sydnes, A.K. (2017). What causes “very serious” maritime accidents? Safety and Reliability—Theory and Applications, 3067-3074. [Crossref]

[15] Batalden, B.M., Sydnes, A.K. (2014). Maritime safety and the ISM code: A study of investigated casualties and incidents. WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs, 13: 3-25. [Crossref]

[16] Uğurlu, Ö., Yıldız, S., Loughney, S., Wang, J. (2018). Modified human factor analysis and classification system for passenger vessel accidents (HFACS-PV). Ocean Engineering, 161: 47-61. [Crossref]

[17] Zhang, L., Wang, H., Meng, Q., Xie, H. (2019). Ship accident consequences and contributing factors analyses using ship accident investigation reports. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part O: Journal of Risk and Reliability, 233(1): 35-47. [Crossref]

[18] Yildiz, S., Uğurlu, Ö., Wang, J., Loughney, S. (2021). Application of the HFACS-PV approach for identification of human and organizational factors (HOFs) influencing marine accidents. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 208: 107395. [Crossref]

[19] Sánchez-Beaskoetxea, J., Basterretxea-Iribar, I., Sotés, I., Machado, M.D.L.M.M. (2021). Human error in marine accidents: Is the crew normally to blame? Maritime Transport Research, 2: 100016. [Crossref]

[20] Hasanspahić, N., Vujičić, S., Frančić, V., Čampara, L. (2021). The role of the human factor in marine accidents. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, 9(3): 261. [Crossref]

[21] Li, H., Ren, X., Yang, Z. (2023). Data-driven Bayesian network for risk analysis of global maritime accidents. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 230: 108938. [Crossref]

[22] Cao, Y., Wang, X., Yang, Z., Wang, J., Wang, H., Liu, Z. (2023). Research in marine accidents: A bibliometric analysis, systematic review and future directions. Ocean Engineering, 284: 115048. [Crossref]

[23] Shappell, S.A., Wiegmann, D.A. (2000). The human factors analysis and classification system - HFACS. https://commons.erau.edu/publication/737/.

Appendix

Annexure 1 – Container Vessel Accident Information

Sr. No.	Accident Information	Year	HFACS Category	Incident Location	Name of the Vessel	Size of Container Vessel	Accident Categorization
01.	Cases\\07~07~2010Charlotte Maersk Fire	2010	Latent Factors (Level 1, 2, 3)	At Sea	Charlotte Maersk	Suezmax	Fire
02.	Cases\\15~05~2011Platon Allision	2011	Both	In Port	CMA CGM Platon	Feedermax	Allision
03.	Cases\\11~12~2011ACX Hibiscus & Hyundai Discovery Collision	2011	Both	At Sea	Hyundai Discovery	Suezmax	Collision
04.	Cases\\14~02~2014 Svendborg Maersk Heavy Weather Damage	2012	Both	At Sea	Svendborg Maersk	Suezmax	Heavy Weather Damage
05.	Cases\\14~07~2012MSC Flamina Fire	2012	Latent Factors (Level 1, 2, 3)	At Sea	MSC Flaminia	Suezmax	Fire
06.	Cases\\05~06~2012Spring Glory & Josephine Maersk Collision	2012	Both	At Sea	Josephine Maersk	Feedermax	Collision
07.	Cases\\18~06~201 Eugen Maersk Fire	2013	Latent Factors (Level 1, 2, 3)	At Sea	Eugene Maersk	Suezmax	Fire
08.	Cases\\10~07~2013MOL Comfort Sinking	2013	Unassig-ned	At Sea	MOL Comfort	Suezmax	Foundering
09.	Cases\\19~03~2013CMA CGM Florida & Chou Shan Collision	2013	Both	At Sea	CMA CGM Florida	Suezmax	Collision
10.	Cases\\11~02~2015Eversmart & Alexandra1 Collision	2015	Both	In Port	Ever Smart	Suezmax	Collision
11.	Cases\\26~08~2015Caroline Maersk Fire In Containers	2015	Latent Factors (Level 1, 2, 3)	At Sea	Carioline Maersk	Suezmax	Fire
12.	Cases\\07~06~2016Estelle Maersk & JJ Skya Collision	2016	Both	In Port	Estelle Maersk	ULCS	Collision
13.	Cases\\22~08~2016CMA CGM Vasco De Gama Grounding	2016	Both	In Port	CMA CGM Vasco De Gama	ULCS	Grounding
14.	Cases\\04~05~2017CMA CGM Centaurus Allison	2017	Both	In Port	CMA CGM Centaurus	Suezmax	Allision
15.	Cases\\19~01~2017Manhattan Bridge Boiler Explosion	2017	Both	In Port	Manhattan Bridge	Suezmax	Explosion
16.	Cases\\30~10~2017 EverSmart Heavy Weather Damage	2017	Both	At Sea	Ever Smart	Suezmax	Heavy Weather Damage
17.	Cases\\10~02~2017Victoria Grounding	2017	Both	At Sea	Victoria	Feedermax	Grounding
18.	Cases\\17~06~2017ACX Crystal & USS Fitzgerald Collision	2017	Both	At Sea	ACX Crystal	Feedermax	Collision
19.	Cases\\17~08~2018OOCLNagoya Allision	2018	Both	In Port	OOCL Nagoya	Panamax	Allision
20.	Cases\\06~03~2018Maesrk Honam Fire	2018	Both	At Sea	Maersk Honam	ULCS	Fire
21.	Cases\\20~01~2018CMACGM G. Washington Heavy Weather Damage	2018	Both	At Sea	CMA CGM G. Washington	ULCS	Heavy Weather Damage
22.	Cases\\04~08~2018ANL Wyong & King Arthur Coliision	2018	Both	At Sea	ANL Wyong	Panamax	Collision
23.	Cases\\04~05~2018NYK Venus& SITC Osaka Collision	2018	Both	In Port	NYK Venus	Suezmax	Collision
24.	Cases\\21~03~2019APL Guam, Marcliff & Hansa Steinberg Collision	2019	Active Factors (Level 4)	In Port	APL Guam	Feedermax	Collision
25.	Cases\\24~10~2019SITC Bangkok Resurgence Collision	2019	Both	In Port	SITC Bangkok	Feedermax	Collision
26.	Cases\\04~04~2019Wan Hai Grounding	2019	Both	In Port	Wan Hai	Feedermax	Grounding
27.	Cases\\26~12~2020Maersk Elba Fire	2020	Latent Factors (Level 1, 2, 3)	At Sea	Maersk Elba	ULCS	Fire
28.	Cases\\15~10~2020APL Pusan & Shoutokumaru Collision	2020	Both	In Port	APL Pusan	Feedermax	Collision
29.	Cases\\16~02~2021 Maersk Essen Heavy Weather Damage	2021	Both	At Sea	Maersk Essen	ULCS	Heavy Weather Damage
Sr. No.	Investigating Authority	Fatality	Injury	Pollution	Operational State	Pilot Onboard	Marine Casualty Information
01.	DMAIB	No	No	No	Coastal Navigation	NA	Serious Marine Casualty
02.	UKMAIB	No	No	No	Unberthing	Yes	Serious Marine Casualty
03.	UKMAIB	No	No	Yes	Coastal Navigation	NA	Very Serious Marine Casualty
04.	DMAIB	No	Minor	Yes	Coastal Navigation	NA	Serious Marine Casualty
05.	FBMCI	Yes (3)	Yes (2)	Yes	Open Sea Navigation	NA	Very Serious Marine Casualty
06.	DMAIB	No	No	Yes	Coastal Navigation	NA	Serious Marine Casualty
07.	DMAIB	No	No	No	Coastal Navigation	NA	Serious Marine Casualty
08.	TBMA	No	Minor	Yes	Open Sea Navigation	NA	Very Serious Marine Casualty
09.	UKMAIB	No	No	Yes	Open Sea Navigation	NA	Serious Marine Casualty
10.	UKMAIB	No	No	No	Approaching Port	Yes	Very Serious Marine Casualty
11.	DMAIB	No	No	No	Coastal Navigation	NA	Serious Marine Casualty
12.	JTSB	No	No	No	Approaching Port	Yes	Unassigned
13.	UKMAIB	No	No	No	Approaching Port	Yes	Serious Marine Casualty
14.	UKMAIB	No	Yes (10)	No	Berthing	Yes	Serious Marine Casualty
15.	JTSB	Yes (1)	Yes (1)	No	Berthing	Yes	Very Serious Marine Casualty
16.	UKMAIB	No	No	Yes	Open Sea Navigation	NA	Less Serious Marine Casualty
17.	DMAIB	No	No	No	Approaching Port	No	Serious Marine Casualty
18.	JTSB	Yes (7)	Yes (3)	No	Coastal Navigation	NA	Very Serious Marine Casualty
19.	JTSB	No	No	No	Berthing	Yes	Unassigned
20.	TSIB	Yes (5)	Yes (22)	Yes	Open Sea Navigation	NA	Serious Marine Casualty
21.	UKMAIB	No	No	Yes	Open Sea Navigation	NA	Serious Marine Casualty
22.	UKMAIB	No	No	No	Approaching Port	No	Serious Marine Casualty
23.	JTSB	No	No	No	Approaching Port	Yes	Unassigned
24.	JTSB	No	No	No	Approaching Port	Yes	Unassigned
25.	JTSB	No	No	No	Approaching Port	Yes	Unassigned
26.	JTSB	No	No	No	Departure from Port	Yes	Unassigned
27.	DMAIB	No	No	No	Coastal Navigation	NA	Serious Marine Casualty
28.	JTSB	No	No	No	Approaching Port	Yes	Unassigned
29.	DMAIB	No	No	Yes	Open Sea Navigation	NA	Serious Marine Casualty

Annexure 2 - Code Book

NASAFACS analysis

Name	File	References
NASAFACS	28	289
L1 ORGANIZATION	14	35
Organizational Culture/ Climate	2	2
Organizational Operations	6	10
Organizational Resources	14	23
L2 SUPERVISION	14	30
Failure to Correct Known Problem	0	0
Inadequate Supervision	9	13
Planned Inappropraite Operations	6	10
Supervisory Violation	4	7
L3 PRECONDITION	27	123
Environmental Factors	19	43
Physical Environment	17	29
Technological Environment	10	13
*Space Environment	0	0
Individual Factors	16	39
Adverse Physiological	1	1
Adverse Psychological	12	18
Awareness (Cognitive) Factors	9	15
Mental	1	1
Perceptual factors	3	3
Personnel Factors	16	41
Communication	16	41
Self Imposed Stress	0	0
L4 ACT	22	101
Errors	21	77
Decision-Making	19	40
Perception	9	13
Skill-Based	15	24
Violations	11	24

Note: *Space Environment: Not applicable to marine accidents

Consequence analysis

Name	File	References
CONSEQUENCES	29	71
Container loss or Damge	12	12
Damage to Port Infrastructure	3	6
Damage to Vessel	27	37
Environmental Pollution	10	10
Fatality	4	4
Injury to Personnel	6	6
None	2	2
Total Loss of Vessel	1	1

Investigating agency details

Name	File	References
Investigating Agency	29	29
Federal Bureau of Maritime Casualty Investigation	1	1
Japan Transport Safety Board	9	9
Marine Accident Investigation Branch, UK	9	9
The Bahamas Maritime Authority	1	1
The Danish Maritime Accident Investigation Board	8	8
The Transport Safety Investigation Bureau of Singapore	1	1

Incident details

Name	File	References
Type of Incident	29	29
Allision	3	3
Collision	11	11
Explosion	2	2
Fire	6	6
Flooding	3	3
Foundering	1	1
Grounding	3	3
Heavy Weather Damage	5	5

Cite this:

APA Style

IEEE Style

BibTex Style

MLA Style

Chicago Style

GB-T-7714-2015

Singh, M. P. & Totakura, B. R. (2024). Container Vessel Accidents Analysis: A NASAHFACS Framework Study. Int. J. Transp. Dev. Integr., 8(2), 341-357. https://doi.org/10.18280/ijtdi.080211

pdf

Figure 1. An accident in making (Based Reason, 1990, as adapted by Shappell and Wiegmann [23])

Table 1. Description of various types of maritime accidents

Citations